9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings - The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Thus, Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. Appeal disposed off. - UDAY UMESH LALIT And INDU MALHOTRA ,JJ. JUDGMENT INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted. 1. The present Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedings initiated by the Respondent Complainant from an Order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompensation. The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006 allowed the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited being ₹ 2,67,750 from the date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the date of realization. The Board was also directed to refund the amount of ₹ 3,937 to the Respondent Complainant. It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days from the date of the Order. 2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the Respondent Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of 2007 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007 dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent Complainant. 2.7. The Respondent Complainant filed Revision Petition No. 1839 of 2007 before the National Commission. The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011 dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum. 2.8. The Respondent Complainant filed SLP (Civil) No. 35226 35227 of 2011 before this Court, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State Commission. The State Commission vide Order dated 01.03.2016 allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent Complainant, and set aside the Order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the District Forum in E.P. No. 2 of 2014. It was directed that the amount of ₹ 2,67,750 already paid by the Board, would be appropriated first towards the Interest component and then towards the principal amount. The State Commission remitted the matter to the District Forum for fresh computation in compliance with the Order. 2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Appellant Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P. No. 1362 of 2016. The Respondent Complainant filed I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to challenge the maintainability of the Revision Petition filed by the Appellant Board. The Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowed vide Order dated 10.02.2017. The stand taken by the Respondent Complainant was rejected as being devoid of merit. 2.12. The Respondent Complainant thereafter preferred M.A. No. 281 of 2017 for referring I.A. No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act, against an order of the State Commission passed in execution proceedings. 4.2. The impugned judgment does not merit interference. 4.3. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the National Commission cannot go beyond the limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule 16 of CPC bars revision in execution appeals. 4.4. An execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation of the consumer dispute . The definition of a complaint and a consumer dispute u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) respectively, cannot be given a wide interpretation to encompass execution proceedings. 4.5. An Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a consumer dispute pending before the State Commission. The consumer dispute filed by the Respondent Complainant was finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012. 4.6. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 161. . The jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only in case of a consumer dispute filed before the State Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) is concerned about the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Commission in a consumer dispute . 6.3. A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an appeal . In Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval, (1975) 2 SCC 246 this Court discussed the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction as follows: 2. Appeal and revision are expressions of common usage in Indian statute and the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction is well known though not well defined. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as it were, on law as well as fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction may, however, be limited in some way as, for instance has been done in the case of second a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Order dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from the execution of the final order passed by this Court. 7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission. Section 25(3) states : 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. (3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order in the consumer dispute since it stands finally decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. 7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings. 8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, the National Commission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of ₹ 2,67,750/( which included an amount of ₹ 3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board). The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of ₹ 3,937/twice, by first including it in the principal amount of ₹ 2,67,750/; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amount of ₹ 3,937/, which would amount to a double payment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
